CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03280108Updated Oct 10, 2019Results posted

Clinical Investigation of AcrySof® IQ PanOptix™ IOL Model TFNT00

An interventional study of AcrySof IQ PanOptix Multifocal IOL and AcrySof Monofocal IOL in Cataract, sponsored by Alcon Research. Completed at 12 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 22 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-10-10.

Sponsored by Alcon Research · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
250
Allocation
Non-randomized
Ages
22 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this clinical study is to compare the visual outcomes of the AcrySof IQ PanOptix Multifocal Intraocular Lens (IOL) Model TFNT00 against that of a monofocal lens, the AcrySof Monofocal IOL Model SN60AT, in order to demonstrate comparable distance vision and superior near and intermediate vision.

Read the detailed description

Both eyes of a subject must require cataract surgery to qualify for enrollment into this study. Subjects participating in the trial will attend a total of 10 study visits over a 7-month period. Of these 10 visits, 1 is preoperative, 2 are operative, and the remaining 7 are postoperative visits. Primary endpoint data will be collected at the Month 6 (Day 120-180) post second eye implantation visit.

02

Conditions studied

  • Cataract

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Intraocular lens
  • IOL
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
22 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Diagnosed with bilateral cataracts with planned cataract removal by phacoemulsification with a clear cornea incision
  • Able to comprehend and willing to sign informed consent and complete all required postoperative follow-up procedures
  • Clear intraocular media other than cataract in both eyes.
  • Preoperative keratometric astigmatism of less than 1.0 diopter (D) in both operative eyes.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Clinically significant corneal abnormalities including corneal dystrophy, irregularity, inflammation or edema
  • Previous refractive surgery or refractive surgery procedures (including, but not limited to LASIK, astigmatic keratotomy, and limbal relaxing incisions)
  • Glaucoma (uncontrolled or controlled with medication)
  • Degenerative eye disorders (e.g. macular degeneration or other retinal disorders)
  • Pregnant or lactating
  • Expected to require a second surgical intervention or retinal laser treatment.
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Non-randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
250 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Multifocal IOL

    AcrySof IQ PanOptix Multifocal IOL Model TFNT00 implanted in the capsular bag in the posterior chamber following cataract removal and intended for long-term use over the lifetime of the cataract patient. Both eyes will be implanted (bilateral implantation).

    Device: AcrySof IQ PanOptix Multifocal IOL

  • Active comparator
    Monofocal IOL

    AcrySof Monofocal IOL Model SN60AT implanted in the capsular bag in the posterior chamber following cataract removal and intended for long-term use over the lifetime of the cataract patient. Both eyes will be implanted (bilateral implantation).

    Device: AcrySof Monofocal IOL

Interventions

  • DeviceAcrySof IQ PanOptix Multifocal IOL

    AcrySof IQ PanOptix Multifocal IOL Model TFNT00 for near, intermediate, and distance vision

    Also known as: Model TFNT00, AcrySof® IQ PanOptix®

  • DeviceAcrySof Monofocal IOL

    AcrySof Monofocal IOL Model SN60AT for single vision

    Also known as: Model SN60AT, AcrySof®

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Mean Photopic Monocular Best Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (4 m)

    Visual acuity (VA) was tested monocularly (each eye separately) under photopic (well-lit) conditions using the correction obtained from the manifest refraction and 100% contrast electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts at a distance of 4 meters (m) from the eye. VA was measured in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), with 0.02 logMAR increment corresponding to a single letter on an ETDRS chart. A lower numeric value represents better visual acuity. This analysis was prespecified for the first operative eye.

    Time frame: Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation

  2. Mean Photopic Monocular Distance Corrected Visual Acuity at Near (40 cm)

    VA was tested monocularly under photopic conditions using the manifest refraction adjusted for optical infinity and 100% contrast electronic ETDRS charts at a distance of 40 centimeters (cm) from the eye. Distance corrected visual acuity at near was measured in logMAR, with 0.02 logMAR increment corresponding to a single letter on an ETDRS chart. A lower numeric value represents better visual acuity. This analysis was prespecified for the first operative eye.

    Time frame: Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation

  3. Cumulative Rate of Secondary Surgical Interventions (SSI) Related to Optical Properties of the IOL, First Eye

    The number of SSI's related to the optical properties of the IOL was calculated from time of implantation up to Month 6. The percentage was calculated as (# of eyes with an SSI related to the optical properties of the IOL) divided by (# of eyes with attempted IOL implantation, successful or aborted after contact with the eye) times 100. SSI's could include, but were not limited to, IOL replacement, IOL explantation, IOL repositioning, refractive laser treatment, paracentesis, vitreous aspirations, iridectomy or laser iridotomy for pupillary block, wound leak repair, and retinal detachment repair. No hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.

    Time frame: Up to Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation

  4. Mean Photopic Without Glare Binocular Distance Contrast Sensitivity

    Contrast sensitivity (ie, the ability to detect objects by distinguishing them from their background) was assessed binocularly (both eyes together) with the subject's best spectacle correction under photopic (well-lit) conditions at a distance of 8 feet from the eye at spatial frequencies of 3, 6, and 12, and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) using the Vector Vision CSV 1000-HGT without a glare source. Raw scores from contrast sensitivity testing were transformed to log units. Subjects who were unable to see a targeted spatial frequency at any available contrast, including that of the reference patch, were assigned the lowest measurable value. A higher numeric value represents better contrast sensitivity. Hypothesis testing was not planned for this outcome measure.

    Time frame: Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation

  5. Mean Photopic With Glare Binocular Distance Contrast Sensitivity

    Contrast sensitivity was assessed binocularly with the subject's best spectacle correction under photopic conditions at a distance of 8 feet from the eye at spatial frequencies of 3, 6, and 12, and 18 cpd using the Vector Vision CSV 1000-HGT with a glare source. Raw scores from contrast sensitivity testing were transformed to log units. Subjects who were unable to see a targeted spatial frequency at any available contrast, including that of the reference patch, were assigned the lowest measurable value. A higher numeric value represents better contrast sensitivity. Hypothesis testing was not planned for this outcome measure.

    Time frame: Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation

  6. Mean Mesopic Without Glare Binocular Distance Contrast Sensitivity

    Contrast sensitivity was assessed binocularly with the subject's best spectacle correction under mesopic (dimly-lit) conditions at a distance of 8 feet from the eye at spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 cpd using the Vector Vision CSV 1000-HGT without a glare source. Raw scores from contrast sensitivity testing were transformed to log units. Subjects who were unable to see a targeted spatial frequency at any available contrast, including that of the reference patch, were assigned the lowest measurable value. A higher numeric value represents better contrast sensitivity. Hypothesis testing was not planned for this outcome measure.

    Time frame: Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation

  7. Mean Mesopic With Glare Binocular Distance Contrast Sensitivity

    Contrast sensitivity was assessed binocularly with the subject's best spectacle correction under mesopic conditions at a distance of 8 feet from the eye at spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 cpd using the Vector Vision CSV 1000-HGT with a glare source. Raw scores from contrast sensitivity testing were transformed to log units. Subjects who were unable to see a targeted spatial frequency at any available contrast, including that of the reference patch, were assigned the lowest measurable value. A higher numeric value represents better contrast sensitivity. Hypothesis testing was not planned for this outcome measure.

    Time frame: Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation

Secondary outcomes

  1. Mean Photopic Monocular Distance Corrected Visual Acuity at Intermediate (66 cm)

    VA was tested monocularly under photopic conditions using the manifest refraction adjusted for optical infinity and 100% contrast electronic ETDRS charts at a distance of 66 cm m from the eye. Monocular distance corrected visual acuity at intermediate was measured in logMAR, with 0.02 logMAR increment corresponding to a single letter on an ETDRS chart. A lower numeric value represents better visual acuity. This analysis was prespecified for the first operative eye.

    Time frame: Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation

  2. Proportion of Subjects Who Respond "Never" to Question 1 of the Intraocular Lens Satisfaction (IOLSAT) Questionnaire

    The IOLSAT is a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire. Subjects were asked, "Overall, in the past 7 days, how often did you need to wear eyeglasses to see?" The proportion of subjects who respond "Never" is reported as a percentage calculated as (# of subjects responding "Never") divided by (# of subjects with bilateral implantation and concordant, non-missing data) times 100.

    Time frame: Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation

  3. Rate of Severe Visual Disturbances as Reported by the Subject Using the Questionnaire for Visual Disturbances (QUVID)

    QUVID is a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire that collects responses about visual disturbance. Subjects were asked if they experienced any of the visual disturbances in the past 7 days from when the questionnaire was conducted and to answer about how severe their worst experience was on a scale from 0-4, where 0=none and 4=severe. The percentage of subjects responding "Severe" was calculated as (# of subjects responding "Severe") divided by (# of subjects with bilateral implantation and non-missing data in the specified category) times 100. Hypothesis testing was not planned for this outcome measure.

    Time frame: Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation

  4. Rate of Most Bothersome Visual Disturbances as Reported by the Subject Using the QUVID

    Subjects were asked if they experienced any of the visual disturbances in the past 7 days from when the questionnaire was conducted and to answer how much the disturbance bothered them on a scale from 0-4, where 0=not bothered at all and 4=bothered very much. The percentage of subjects with most bothersome visual disturbances was calculated as (# of subjects responding "Bothered very much") divided by (# of subjects with bilateral implantation and non-missing data in the specified category) times 100. Hypothesis testing was not planned for this outcome measure.

    Time frame: Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation

06

Results

Posted Oct 10, 2019

Participant flow

Subjects were recruited from 12 investigative sites located in the United States.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneTFNT00SN60AT
Started129114
Completed127114
Not completed20
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up20

Outcome measures

PrimaryMean Photopic Monocular Best Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (4 m)

Visual acuity (VA) was tested monocularly (each eye separately) under photopic (well-lit) conditions using the correction obtained from the manifest refraction and 100% contrast electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts at a distance of 4 meters (m) from the eye. VA was measured in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), with 0.02 logMAR increment corresponding to a single letter on an ETDRS chart. A lower numeric value represents better visual acuity. This analysis was prespecified for the first operative eye.

Time frame:
Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation
Reported as:
Least squares mean · logMAR
Mean Photopic Monocular Best Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (4 m)
logMARTFNT00SN60AT
Mean Photopic Monocular Best Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (4 m)-0.014 ± 0.0083-0.039 ± 0.0087
Statistical analysis
  • TFNT00 vs SN60AT · Least squares mean difference: 0.024
PrimaryMean Photopic Monocular Distance Corrected Visual Acuity at Near (40 cm)

VA was tested monocularly under photopic conditions using the manifest refraction adjusted for optical infinity and 100% contrast electronic ETDRS charts at a distance of 40 centimeters (cm) from the eye. Distance corrected visual acuity at near was measured in logMAR, with 0.02 logMAR increment corresponding to a single letter on an ETDRS chart. A lower numeric value represents better visual acuity. This analysis was prespecified for the first operative eye.

Time frame:
Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation
Reported as:
Least squares mean · logMAR
Mean Photopic Monocular Distance Corrected Visual Acuity at Near (40 cm)
logMARTFNT00SN60AT
Mean Photopic Monocular Distance Corrected Visual Acuity at Near (40 cm)0.105 ± 0.01190.529 ± 0.0127
Statistical analysis
  • TFNT00 vs SN60AT · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.001
PrimaryCumulative Rate of Secondary Surgical Interventions (SSI) Related to Optical Properties of the IOL, First Eye

The number of SSI's related to the optical properties of the IOL was calculated from time of implantation up to Month 6. The percentage was calculated as (# of eyes with an SSI related to the optical properties of the IOL) divided by (# of eyes with attempted IOL implantation, successful or aborted after contact with the eye) times 100. SSI's could include, but were not limited to, IOL replacement, IOL explantation, IOL repositioning, refractive laser treatment, paracentesis, vitreous aspirations, iridectomy or laser iridotomy for pupillary block, wound leak repair, and retinal detachment repair. No hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.

Time frame:
Up to Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation
Reported as:
Count of units · Eyes
Cumulative Rate of Secondary Surgical Interventions (SSI) Related to Optical Properties of the IOL, First Eye
EyesTFNT00SN60AT
Cumulative Rate of Secondary Surgical Interventions (SSI) Related to Optical Properties of the IOL, First Eye10
PrimaryMean Photopic Without Glare Binocular Distance Contrast Sensitivity

Contrast sensitivity (ie, the ability to detect objects by distinguishing them from their background) was assessed binocularly (both eyes together) with the subject's best spectacle correction under photopic (well-lit) conditions at a distance of 8 feet from the eye at spatial frequencies of 3, 6, and 12, and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) using the Vector Vision CSV 1000-HGT without a glare source. Raw scores from contrast sensitivity testing were transformed to log units. Subjects who were unable to see a targeted spatial frequency at any available contrast, including that of the reference patch, were assigned the lowest measurable value. A higher numeric value represents better contrast sensitivity. Hypothesis testing was not planned for this outcome measure.

Time frame:
Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation
Reported as:
Mean · log units
Mean Photopic Without Glare Binocular Distance Contrast Sensitivity
log unitsTFNT00SN60AT
3 cpd1.752 ± 0.20801.733 ± 0.1989
6 cpd1.923 ± 0.23491.940 ± 0.2328
12 cpd1.527 ± 0.27931.558 ± 0.2566
18 cpd0.993 ± 0.28741.090 ± 0.2661
PrimaryMean Photopic With Glare Binocular Distance Contrast Sensitivity

Contrast sensitivity was assessed binocularly with the subject's best spectacle correction under photopic conditions at a distance of 8 feet from the eye at spatial frequencies of 3, 6, and 12, and 18 cpd using the Vector Vision CSV 1000-HGT with a glare source. Raw scores from contrast sensitivity testing were transformed to log units. Subjects who were unable to see a targeted spatial frequency at any available contrast, including that of the reference patch, were assigned the lowest measurable value. A higher numeric value represents better contrast sensitivity. Hypothesis testing was not planned for this outcome measure.

Time frame:
Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation
Reported as:
Mean · log units
Mean Photopic With Glare Binocular Distance Contrast Sensitivity
log unitsTFNT00SN60AT
3 cpd1.759 ± 0.18901.753 ± 0.1928
6 cpd1.897 ± 0.23221.971 ± 0.1952
12 cpd1.566 ± 0.27281.593 ± 0.2659
18 cpd1.037 ± 0.27621.121 ± 0.2537
PrimaryMean Mesopic Without Glare Binocular Distance Contrast Sensitivity

Contrast sensitivity was assessed binocularly with the subject's best spectacle correction under mesopic (dimly-lit) conditions at a distance of 8 feet from the eye at spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 cpd using the Vector Vision CSV 1000-HGT without a glare source. Raw scores from contrast sensitivity testing were transformed to log units. Subjects who were unable to see a targeted spatial frequency at any available contrast, including that of the reference patch, were assigned the lowest measurable value. A higher numeric value represents better contrast sensitivity. Hypothesis testing was not planned for this outcome measure.

Time frame:
Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation
Reported as:
Mean · log units
Mean Mesopic Without Glare Binocular Distance Contrast Sensitivity
log unitsTFNT00SN60AT
1.5 cpd1.673 ± 0.26011.679 ± 0.2190
3 cpd1.717 ± 0.23971.689 ± 0.2177
6 cpd1.715 ± 0.28751.777 ± 0.2871
12 cpd1.211 ± 0.40471.290 ± 0.4384
PrimaryMean Mesopic With Glare Binocular Distance Contrast Sensitivity

Contrast sensitivity was assessed binocularly with the subject's best spectacle correction under mesopic conditions at a distance of 8 feet from the eye at spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 cpd using the Vector Vision CSV 1000-HGT with a glare source. Raw scores from contrast sensitivity testing were transformed to log units. Subjects who were unable to see a targeted spatial frequency at any available contrast, including that of the reference patch, were assigned the lowest measurable value. A higher numeric value represents better contrast sensitivity. Hypothesis testing was not planned for this outcome measure.

Time frame:
Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation
Reported as:
Mean · log units
Mean Mesopic With Glare Binocular Distance Contrast Sensitivity
log unitsTFNT00SN60AT
1.5 cpd1.658 ± 0.22961.678 ± 0.2091
3 cpd1.709 ± 0.23071.692 ± 0.2089
6 cpd1.691 ± 0.32381.786 ± 0.2775
12 cpd1.129 ± 0.41461.233 ± 0.4599
SecondaryMean Photopic Monocular Distance Corrected Visual Acuity at Intermediate (66 cm)

VA was tested monocularly under photopic conditions using the manifest refraction adjusted for optical infinity and 100% contrast electronic ETDRS charts at a distance of 66 cm m from the eye. Monocular distance corrected visual acuity at intermediate was measured in logMAR, with 0.02 logMAR increment corresponding to a single letter on an ETDRS chart. A lower numeric value represents better visual acuity. This analysis was prespecified for the first operative eye.

Time frame:
Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation
Reported as:
Least squares mean · logMAR
Mean Photopic Monocular Distance Corrected Visual Acuity at Intermediate (66 cm)
logMARTFNT00SN60AT
Mean Photopic Monocular Distance Corrected Visual Acuity at Intermediate (66 cm)0.070 ± 0.01080.327 ± 0.0114
Statistical analysis
  • TFNT00 vs SN60AT · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.001 · Least squares mean difference: -0.257 · 95% CI -0.287 to -0.227
SecondaryProportion of Subjects Who Respond "Never" to Question 1 of the Intraocular Lens Satisfaction (IOLSAT) Questionnaire

The IOLSAT is a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire. Subjects were asked, "Overall, in the past 7 days, how often did you need to wear eyeglasses to see?" The proportion of subjects who respond "Never" is reported as a percentage calculated as (# of subjects responding "Never") divided by (# of subjects with bilateral implantation and concordant, non-missing data) times 100.

Time frame:
Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation
Reported as:
Number · percentage of subjects
Proportion of Subjects Who Respond "Never" to Question 1 of the Intraocular Lens Satisfaction (IOLSAT) Questionnaire
percentage of subjectsTFNT00SN60AT
Proportion of Subjects Who Respond "Never" to Question 1 of the Intraocular Lens Satisfaction (IOLSAT) Questionnaire80.58.2
Statistical analysis
  • TFNT00 vs SN60AT · Mantel-haenszel common difference: 71.2 · 95% CI 61.87 to 80.46
SecondaryRate of Severe Visual Disturbances as Reported by the Subject Using the Questionnaire for Visual Disturbances (QUVID)

QUVID is a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire that collects responses about visual disturbance. Subjects were asked if they experienced any of the visual disturbances in the past 7 days from when the questionnaire was conducted and to answer about how severe their worst experience was on a scale from 0-4, where 0=none and 4=severe. The percentage of subjects responding "Severe" was calculated as (# of subjects responding "Severe") divided by (# of subjects with bilateral implantation and non-missing data in the specified category) times 100. Hypothesis testing was not planned for this outcome measure.

Time frame:
Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Rate of Severe Visual Disturbances as Reported by the Subject Using the Questionnaire for Visual Disturbances (QUVID)
ParticipantsTFNT00SN60AT
Starbursts202
Halos161
Glare42
Hazy vision00
Blurred vision00
Double vision00
Dark area00
SecondaryRate of Most Bothersome Visual Disturbances as Reported by the Subject Using the QUVID

Subjects were asked if they experienced any of the visual disturbances in the past 7 days from when the questionnaire was conducted and to answer how much the disturbance bothered them on a scale from 0-4, where 0=not bothered at all and 4=bothered very much. The percentage of subjects with most bothersome visual disturbances was calculated as (# of subjects responding "Bothered very much") divided by (# of subjects with bilateral implantation and non-missing data in the specified category) times 100. Hypothesis testing was not planned for this outcome measure.

Time frame:
Month 6 (Day 120-180), post second eye implantation
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Rate of Most Bothersome Visual Disturbances as Reported by the Subject Using the QUVID
ParticipantsTFNT00SN60AT
Starbursts61
Halos31
Glare21
Hazy vision01
Blurred vision02
Double vision00
Dark area00

Adverse events

Collected over Implantation through study completion, an average of 7 months. Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Preoperative0/243 (0%)0/243 (0%)1/243 (0.4%)
TFNT00 - 1st Eye0/129 (0%)2/129 (1.6%)24/129 (18.6%)
TFNT00 - 2nd Eye0/127 (0%)2/127 (1.6%)24/127 (18.9%)
TFNT00 - Systemic0/129 (0%)4/129 (3.1%)0/129 (0%)
SN60AT - 1st Eye0/114 (0%)2/114 (1.8%)10/114 (8.8%)
SN60AT - 2nd Eye0/111 (0%)1/111 (0.9%)7/111 (6.3%)
SN60AT - Systemic0/114 (0%)3/114 (2.6%)0/114 (0%)
Most frequent serious events
Showing 10 of 19
Most frequent serious events
EventPreoperativeTFNT00 - 1st EyeTFNT00 - 2nd EyeTFNT00 - SystemicSN60AT - 1st EyeSN60AT - 2nd EyeSN60AT - Systemic
Intra-ocular injectionSurgical and medical procedures0/2431/1292/1271/1291/1141/1110/114
Age-related macular degenerationEye disorders0/2430/1290/1270/1291/1141/1110/114
Posterior capsule ruptureEye disorders0/2430/1290/1270/1291/1140/1110/114
Cholecystitis acuteHepatobiliary disorders0/2430/1290/1270/1290/1140/1111/114
CholelithiasisHepatobiliary disorders0/2430/1290/1271/1290/1140/1111/114
Breast neoplasmNeoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)0/2430/1290/1270/1290/1140/1111/114
Device dislocationProduct Issues0/2430/1291/1270/1291/1140/1110/114
Acute kidney injuryRenal and urinary disorders0/2430/1290/1270/1290/1140/1111/114
Lens extractionSurgical and medical procedures0/2431/1290/1270/1291/1140/1110/114
Cystoid macular oedemaEye disorders0/2430/1291/1270/1290/1140/1110/114
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventPreoperativeTFNT00 - 1st EyeTFNT00 - 2nd EyeTFNT00 - SystemicSN60AT - 1st EyeSN60AT - 2nd EyeSN60AT - Systemic
Posterior capsule opacificationEye disorders0/24317/12919/1270/1294/1145/1110/114
Intraocular pressure increasedInvestigations1/2437/1295/1270/1296/1142/1110/114

Baseline characteristics

This analysis population includes all eyes with successful IOL implantation with at least 1 post-operative visit (All-Implanted Analysis Set).

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)TFNT00SN60ATTotal
Mean65.8 ± 7.3169.0 ± 6.4667.3 ± 7.09
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)TFNT00SN60ATTotal
Female8579164
Male443579
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity, Customized(Participants)TFNT00SN60ATTotal
White11396209
Black or African American81119
American Indian or Alaska Native000
Asian718
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander022
Other145
07

Study locations

12 sites
  • Alcon Investigative Site
    Fresno, California 93720, United States
  • Alcon Investigative Site
    Mount Dora, Florida 32757, United States
  • Alcon Investigative Site
    Panama City, Florida 32405, United States
  • Alcon Investigative Site
    Poughkeepsie, New York 12603, United States
  • Alcon Investigative Site
    Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464, United States
  • Alcon Investigative Site
    Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108, United States
  • Alcon Investigative Site
    Nashville, Tennessee 37205, United States
  • Alcon Investigative Site
    Houston, Texas 77027, United States
  • Alcon Investigative Site
    Hurst, Texas 76054, United States
  • Alcon Investigative Site
    Nacogdoches, Texas 75965, United States
  • Alcon Investigative Site
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84107, United States
  • Alcon Investigative Site
    Norfolk, Virginia 23502, United States
08

References and documents

Study documents

  • Study protocol · Mar 28, 2018
  • Statistical analysis plan · Sep 26, 2018

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03280108
Lead sponsor
Alcon Research
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Sep 12, 2017
Start date
Nov 1, 2017
Primary completion
Sep 27, 2018
Completion
Sep 27, 2018
Results posted
Oct 10, 2019
Last update
Oct 10, 2019

Study contacts

Alcon Research
study director · Alcon Research

Oversight

FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion